Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 05-17-2011, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Right. That is true for any historical texts about anything, at least before the details are explained and counterpoints are made to such a hypothesis. Then it can turn into the most bizarre and needlessly-convoluted hypothesis on the table.

Can you tell us all of any other such historical text, none of whose central narrative has been confirmed by external sources, yet much of whose central narrative can be dismissed as certainly not historical, that you would care to defend as historical or are you just making a special plea--cloaked in self-appeasing sugar-coated rhetorical gobbledygook--for the new testament as necessarily containing historical material?

And ruin his masterfull and insightfull arguments, please...

Juststeve · 05-17-2011, 06:51 AM

Perhaps the Iliad would meet Spin's criteria of an historical event cloaked in a great deal of legendary material. There is at least a number of respectable scholars who regard the account as having been based on an actual event, particularly in light of archeological evidence.

Steve

Toto · 05-17-2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

Toto's claim was, "Most critics who read Mark do not find any evidence that Mark was embarrassed by the baptism scene." It is an exaggeration on Toto's part. If Toto had said, "Most critics who read Mark do not mention any evidence in Mark that Mark was embarrassed by the baptism scene," then Toto would be correct.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Biblical critics are not know for hiding their reactions.

Quote:

Most of the time, when the topic is discussed, Mark's account is regarded as relatively unembarrased,

i.e., not embarrassed.

Quote:

and the focus is on the later gospels, which most clearly show signs of embarrassment. These scholars would include Bart Ehrman. Redaction-critical method based on comparisons between Mark and later gospels allows the evidence of embarrassment to be far more conclusive in the later gospels. Since Mark was the earliest gospel, we can't use redaction-criticism to know the perspective of Mark as well. Perhaps the main reason they would conclude that Mark was likewise embarrassed by the baptism account would be the mere presence of the baptism account in Mark and Mark's religious proximity with Matthew, Luke, and John.

Talk about a convoluted argument. What's wrong with just reading Mark to find out what he says?

Quote:

Some scholars do, however, write about direct evidence of embarrassment of the baptism account in Mark, not just in Matthew, Luke, and John, albeit more uncertainly. They use the criterion of dissimilarity, the same arguments that I have given in the OP, and more. Kilian McDonnell wrote in The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: the trinitarian and cosmic order of salvation (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 2-3,

As to the purity of the tradition that Mark hands on, we are not sure that the Markan version is without retouching. Mark, the only independent witness to the baptism among the Synoptics--Matthew and Luke depend on him--arranges this material to demonstrate Jesus' superiority to John. If Jesus stands in the inheritance of John, much more is he heir to the Old Testament prophecies, which themselves explain why Jesus is superior. Mark associates the Baptist with Malachi, Isaiah, and Elijah, and he goes out of his way to relate the baptism of Jesus to imagery of the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses. The rending of the heavens is the instrument of a theophany, attested already in Judaism. The heavenly voice proclaims that Jesus is God's Son in an expansion of the words of Psalm 2:7, "You are my Son, the Beloved." The words in Mark are addressed to Jesus, not to the onlookers; Jesus is informed of his status for the first time. These are the words Yahweh addresses to the Davidic king on the day of his enthronement. The words of Psalm 2:7 and the symbolic "anointing" with the Spirit suggest that this Son is also the promised Davidic Messiah. The phrase "with you I am well pleased" comes from Isaiah 42:1, making Jesus the Servant of Yahweh, the mysterious transcendent figure whom God endows with the spirit to reestablish the covenant community by his sacrificial and atoning death, vindicated by his resurrection. The superiority of Jesus is stressed. "You," not John, are "my Son"; "you," not John, are the beloved of the Father; "you," not John, are the Messiah; "you," not John, are the Servant of Yahweh.

Yet the case must not be overstated. When Jesus is asked the basis of his authority ... , his counter-question, whether the baptism of John came from heaven or from men, should not be taken simply as a dodge. Rather, if taken seriously, it means "My authority rests on John's baptism"...

How can you read that and still think that Mark is embarrassed? Mark has woven a narrative based on the Exodus that shows Jesus is superior to John. There is nothing embarrassing, and nothing that would indicate that there must have been a historical basis for this baptism.

Quote:

Robert L. Webb wrote in "Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications," Bulletin for Biblical Research, 10.2 (2000), pp. 274-275,

The discussion above concerning multiple attestation of the baptismal accounts would also apply to the theophany accounts. The existence of four independent witnesses would support the historicity of the theophany. However, a number of problems arise concerning the historicity of the theophany. First, of all, to portray Jesus as endowed with the Spirit and identified as God's Son fits very well with early Christian theological reflection concerning Jesus. Applying the criterion of dissimilarity calls the historicity of the theophany into question.

Second, it also serves the early Christians well from an apologetic perspective to address the problems of Jesus' baptism by John. We saw above that the developing tradition increasingly emphasized the theophany and downplayed the baptism. Even in Mark, where the two items are given more equal weight, the very presence of the theophany immediately succeeding the baptismal account helps to mitigate the difficulties with the baptism. Crossan calls this "theological damage control."

I think this has to be a good example of how useless the criteria are, since Webb has to work so hard to find some reason for an obviously unhistorical event to be ruled out.

Quote:

I found these sources just now on Google scholar, and it is refreshing to find them, since before now I didn't know for sure whether or not my arguments--about the humility of John the Baptist and God's spirit alighting on Jesus at the expense of John the Baptist--would be shared among anyone in the scholarship. Such arguments did strike me as damned powerful when I thought of them.

I don't see anyone sharing your idea that the humility of John the Baptist is a factor in using the criterion of embarrassment.

Toto · 05-17-2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Perhaps the Iliad would meet Spin's criteria of an historical event cloaked in a great deal of legendary material. There is at least a number of respectable scholars who regard the account as having been based on an actual event, particularly in light of archeological evidence.

Steve

There is some idea that there was an actual war, but I don't know of any who try to recover the historical Achilles or the historical Helen (or the historical Athena) from the poetry.

Toto · 05-17-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I'm done with you.

That's a relief.

ApostateAbe · 05-17-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Right. That is true for any historical texts about anything, at least before the details are explained and counterpoints are made to such a hypothesis. Then it can turn into the most bizarre and needlessly-convoluted hypothesis on the table.

Can you tell us all of any other such historical text, none of whose central narrative has been confirmed by external sources, yet much of whose central narrative can be dismissed as certainly not historical, that you would care to defend as historical or are you just making a special plea--cloaked in self-appeasing sugar-coated rhetorical gobbledygook--for the new testament as necessarily containing historical material?

I can't think of any historical texts like that, not even the gospels. The gospels has some of its central narrative confirmed by external sources, including having a brother named James and getting crucified by Pontius Pilate. Though, if you have an especially high standard of what counts for "external sources" in ancient history, then, yeah, I can't think of anything. Juststeve mentioned The Iliad, and maybe that meets your twisted and oblong goalposts or maybe not, although it wouldn't satisfy you for sure regardless, I figure.

Besides, when deciding whether or not the New Testament contains historical material, I think it is best to focus on the details of the most relevant evidence itself, not go places that are completely different. I know that you don't like to do history that way, but I think that is the way good history is done.

I argue my position with a pattern of history that I propose does not strongly depend on such subjectively-judged criteria. Find a myth of a human doomsday cult leader who was merely-myth, not based on a character of the same rough profile. If you can answer that, then it would be best to do so in this more relevant thread:

The failed prophecies of the historical Jesus

Last time you were in that thread, you made the mistake in thinking that the argument was all about embarrassment, so be sure to avoid that mistake.

ApostateAbe · 05-17-2011, 08:14 AM

Just an FYI before proceeding: if anyone besides Toto thinks that any of Toto's arguments are worth discussing, then go ahead and quote them for me and I will talk about them. Sometimes, Toto has some good arguments, but a heckuva lot of very bad ones, seemingly, and I have lost patience with Toto in general.

Toto · 05-17-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can you tell us all of any other such historical text, none of whose central narrative has been confirmed by external sources, yet much of whose central narrative can be dismissed as certainly not historical, that you would care to defend as historical or are you just making a special plea--cloaked in self-appeasing sugar-coated rhetorical gobbledygook--for the new testament as necessarily containing historical material?

I can't think of any historical texts like that, not even the gospels. The gospels has some of its central narrative confirmed by external sources, including having a brother named James and getting crucified by Pontius Pilate....

There are no demonstrably independent sources that have not passed through the hands of Christian scribes that confirm these details.

ApostateAbe · 05-17-2011, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Can you tell us all of any other such historical text, none of whose central narrative has been confirmed by external sources, yet much of whose central narrative can be dismissed as certainly not historical, that you would care to defend as historical or are you just making a special plea--cloaked in self-appeasing sugar-coated rhetorical gobbledygook--for the new testament as necessarily containing historical material?

And ruin his masterfull and insightfull arguments, please...

I think spin's masterful and insightful argument relates to my own masterful and insightful arguments only as far as they share the same general subject, so one set of arguments does not ruin the other. Don't think my own arguments are ruined when spin or anyone else changes the topic. You ruin an argument by revealing falsehoods in the premises or the logic or by finding better explanations for the same data.

Juststeve · 05-17-2011, 09:04 AM

Toto:

Is the fact that writings "passed through the hands of Christians scribes" disqualifying? If so you are coming very close to a conspiratorial view that you claim to eschew. You know, all those Christians got together and cooked the story up.

Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2011, 06:51 AM	#202
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Perhaps the Iliad would meet Spin's criteria of an historical event cloaked in a great deal of legendary material. There is at least a number of respectable scholars who regard the account as having been based on an actual event, particularly in light of archeological evidence. Steve

05-17-2011, 08:14 AM	#207
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Just an FYI before proceeding: if anyone besides Toto thinks that any of Toto's arguments are worth discussing, then go ahead and quote them for me and I will talk about them. Sometimes, Toto has some good arguments, but a heckuva lot of very bad ones, seemingly, and I have lost patience with Toto in general.

05-17-2011, 09:04 AM	#210
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: Is the fact that writings "passed through the hands of Christians scribes" disqualifying? If so you are coming very close to a conspiratorial view that you claim to eschew. You know, all those Christians got together and cooked the story up. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.